Bombay High Court
Hausrao Abaji Ghodke vs Director,Gramin Vikas Va ... on 1 September, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5719 of 1995
Hausrao Abaji Ghodke,
Age-Major, Occu-Nil,
R/o Ambhora, Taluka Ashti,
Dist. Beed -- PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The Director,
Gramin Vikas Va Sanshodhan Kendra,
Ahmednagar College, Ahmednagar,
2. The State of Maharashtra -- RESPONDENTS
Mr.N.K.Kakade, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.D.Kaldate, AGP for respondent No.2.
Mr.A.S.Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No.1.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 01/09/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
09/02/1994 delivered by the Labour Court in which his Complaint
(ULP) No.57/1988 has been partly allowed and he has been granted
re-employment on the same terms and conditions on which he was
previously working. Reinstatement with continuity and full back
wages have been denied.
2. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
khs/SEPT.2016/5719-d
05/09/1995 by which his Revision (ULP) No.11/1994 has been
dismissed.
3. Mr.Kakade, learned Advocate for the petitioner has strenuously
criticized both the impugned judgments. Contention is that the
petitioner was working for more than 2 years with the respondents
from 1985 to 1987. He was appointed as a Supervisor. The nature of
work that was available was with regard to the project floated by
Lutheran World Relief and under the financial aid of the said
Organization. Ahmednagar College where the said project was
implemented, is an Establishment which is still in existence.
4. Though the petitioner was engaged on a project, the said project
has continued. Consequentially, the termination of the petitioner on
the ground that the work has come to an end is unsustainable. A
Gramin Vikas Kendra, where the petitioner was employed for the said
project, also continues. As such, the petitioner was entitled for
reinstatement with continuity and full back wages. Instead the
Labour Court has erroneously directed the respondent to re-employ
the petitioner.
5. Mr.Bajaj, learned Advocate on behalf of respondent No.1 has
khs/SEPT.2016/5719-d
submitted a purshis dated 01/09/2016 to indicate that the
respondent/client has taken away the brief for engaging another
Advocate in his place. Said purshis is taken on record and is marked
as Exhibit 'X' for identification.
5. Having considered the submissions of the learned Advocates of
the petitioner, I have gone through the petition paper book with their
assistance.
6. There is no dispute that the respondent/Management has not
challenged the impugned judgments before this Court.
Consequentially, the direction of giving reemployment to the petitioner
on the same terms and conditions of his earlier engagement, as issued
by the Labour Court are assailed only by the petitioner.
7. The Labour Court has considered that the Lutheran Committee
had visited the respondent/College for implementing a Project. The
petitioner was engaged by the respondent for the said project. On
account of no funds being available, the said project was brought to an
end. In my view, Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
was squarely applicable to this case. However, the said issue is not
required to be gone into by this Court since the respondent/
khs/SEPT.2016/5719-d
Management has not challenged the judgment of the Labour Court
either before the Industrial Court or before this Court.
8. Notwithstanding the fact as recorded above, the Labour Court
directed the respondents to re-employ the petitioner. Despite the
allegations of non-compliance of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the
I.D. Act, 1947 and despite the petitioner having not brought on record
the name of even a single candidate who was junior to the petitioner
and retained in service or was freshly appointed after terminating the
petitioner, even then, the Labour Court has granted reemployment to
the petitioner.
9. In fact, it is settled law that unless evidence in support of
violation of Section 25-G and 25-H is not adduced, no order of re-
employment would have been passed. Since the judgment of the
Labour court is not assailed by the Management, I am not required to
deal with this aspect.
10. Consequentially, this petition, being devoid of merit, is therefore
dismissed. Rule is discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/SEPT.2016/5719-d
